Sunday, March 24, 2013

Obviously, this is an oversimplification. Winston Churchill described Russia as "a riddle, hidden inside an enigma." If the Prime Minister were alive today, he would likely describe contemporary America as "controlled by two bickering cousins who represent less than one-third of the nation's total population."

So...We have two factions fighting. But, in reality, they are "cut from the same cloth." And, they actually represent the will of only one-third of the population? How is this possible? If indeed it is actually true!

"Money. Organization. And, the ability to divide and conquer."

Works very time!

Even though there are many who would argue with the former Prime Minister, it may be worth study! America is controlled by two major political parties. Both position the other as diametrically different. But are they?

As one former CIA Operative coined, "it's like a large university with a red team and a blue team. The same people are controlling everything."

There are some activist groups who go as far as to say, "America is no longer a Republic. It is a corporation."

Let us say, for the sake of the argument, all of this is "poppycock!" We are not a corporation. We are not a red team and a blue team, playing for the same university. We are a "large, diverse democracy." Anyone believing otherwise is an "out in left field reactionary!" Chris Mathews certainly holds to this paradigm.

Conservatives have attempted to find solace in the Republican Party. They are temporarily enthused when they march to the ballot boxes in hope of bringing about relief from perceived injustices and infractions. Sharp rhetoric finds welcoming ears when it comes to describing the outrages of the left leaning opposition. However, when the piper demands payment, there is always a reason for "massaging" and eventually accepting the other guys point of view!

One frequent user of this blog described our Washingtonians as "Democans and Republicrats." There is some credence to this assertion.

Let's wind the clock back momentarily, returning to Ragtime Russia. Most Americans are not interested in their own history, let alone Russian history! But, it merits our attention.

On the eve of the first World War, there was an intense argument taking place in the soon to be in control, Communist Party. At odds were Joseph Stalin and Leon Trotsky, with Vladimir Lenin presiding. Lenin would eventually be the father of the modern Soviet Union. But following the 1917 revolution, things were far from settled internally.

Trotsky wanted to export the revolution world wide. Stalin wanted to build it from within, believing survival and world dominance began with transforming Russia into an industrial powerhouse. There were other differences as well.

The followers of Trotsky assumed that modern man would embrace the Marxist system voluntarily. Stalin concluded that the country lacked the time to allow people to gradually accept Communism. His five-year plans accelerated adoption by force. His methodology was later condemned by top party officials, including Nikita Kruschev.

Followers of Trotsky held Stalin largely in contempt. There were efforts to undermine him, resulting in executions,(in many cases murders), deportations, forced famines and outright terror! Those "Trotskyites" fortunate enough, exited Russia, landing in other parts of Europe, and the Western Hemisphere, including America. Trotsky himself was in Mexico when he assassinated in 1940.

All "Stalinists" did not reside in Russia. An enclave of primarily Jewish Marxists were spawned at the now famous Frankfurt School, in Frankfurt, Germany. With the rise of Adoph Hitler, they departed for the west, ultimately landing in New York City.

In Russia, the two sides were referred to as "Bolsheviks and Mensheviks." The names are derivatives of "Bol and Men;" More and less." The Bolsheviks won because there was more support for their interpretation of Communism. The Mensheviks with less lost, resorting to exile.

Much has been written about Leon Trotsky and his interpretation of Karl Marx's writings. Some suggest that he was the true Socialist, believing as Lenin did, that a Democracy could be the fruit of a system that was properly run. Stalin, was more pragmatic. He concluded that the "workers were not at a point" where they could wisely determine a course. His "dictatorship of the Proletariat" was nothing more than Democracy orchestrated by the Communist Party.

How does this relate to contemporary America?

The Frankfurt School produced many names including Antonio Gramsci who was the mentor for Saul Alinsky. Modern disciples of Alinsky include Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

There is growing evidence that modern "Neo-Conservatives" or "Neo-Cons" are "evolved Trotskyites." But, who are the "Neo-Cons?" And where are they to be found?

Kentucky Senator, Rand Paul made a stark distinction between "Constitutional Conservatives" and "Neo-Conservatives" in his book, "The Tea Party Goes to Washington." According to Senator Paul, "Neo-Cons" advocate a "large, Washington D.C. based central government" with a role "to advance and facilitate conservative principles and policies."

Sounds a bit contradictory! In reality, we can see the teachings of Trotsky manifested in modern U.S. policy. And, to the surprise of many Republicans, they are not necessarily coming from the Democrat Party!

Let us examine two of George W. Bush's gifts: "No Child Left Behind" and "The Department of Homeland Security." Both were well meant, well intended programs designed to better America. And both involved greater control from Washington, D.C. Not to mention the expansion of the central government!

How about Iraq and Afghanistan? Were we not "exporting democracy" to those regions?
Did we not assume that when given a taste of our system, the locals would embrace it? Since both countries were "replacing governments," did this not amount to "exporting a revolution?"

What about British Economist, John Maynard Keynes and his world renowned, "Keynesian theory of economics?" In a nutshell, "tax and spend, deficit spending," etc. And who was one of the players who's theories greatly impacted Lord Keynes? If you guessed Karl Marx, you are correct!

On the other side of the Atlantic, there were some notable figures who were greatly influenced by Keynes, beginning with Franklin D. Roosevelt. You can add Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama to the list!

Many committed conservatives find it disquieting that Agenda 21, now commonly referred to as "Sustainability" was initially supported by George H. W. Bush.

Are we suggesting that all of these referenced U.S. Presidents were "evolved Trotskyites?"

Not entirely. But, it is disquieting to note that many of their policies, both foreign and domestic can be traced to the former Menshevik leader.

The Bolsheviks are easier to fathom. They simply want the government to take over, in the name of "Social Justice." When we see anti-second amendment stalwarts Charles Schumer, Diane Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi, speak out in favor of the merits of gun control, we need only to read the memoirs of their mentor, Joseph Stalin to understand their orientation.

The "Mensheviks" are a bit more difficult to pigeonhole. They like to talk about the "clear contrast" between Republican and Democrat visions for the country. That they loathe the other side is clearly evident. Stalin and Trotsky hated each other!

This notwithstanding,were not "Bolsheviks and Mensheviks" in basic agreement on the big picture? True, they represented varied visions of Communism. In some cases,especially methodology, their visions of how to implement Marxism were quite defined. In the end, however, they were opposite extremes of the same ingredient.

100 years later, the argument continues to rage. The names, faces, countries and languages have changed. But the discussion remains the same.

Yet, if both sides represent only one-third of America, what about the remaining two-thirds? It is plainly evident that millions are disgusted with both parties! Two aspects must be remembered.

Following the 2008 Presidential, Senate and Congressional elections, the Republican party was in disarray. An awful election was followed by an explosion of spending and ideas that involved more government intrusion. A grass roots movement that was non-partisan in scope called the "Tea Party" emerged. The midterm elections followed. A recovery for the Republican Party seemed to be unfolding. Then came 2012. Reality returned.

The 100-year-old argument resumed. Important to note, the same entities were backing both candidates, effectively hedging their bets in the event that a slight tremor in the system took place.

Is this the hopeless conclusion for our American fate? Sadly a lot of our people have given up. The thinking is, "who am I to make any waves? It is, what it is. Nothing or nobody can change what has become our country." In essence, "the red team and the blue team" will work something out as always.

There are idealistic dreamers who remind, "it's a good thing that Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and George Washington didn't see it that way!" They are quick to point out that "we must begin questioning our career politicians, assuming that they don't always act in our best interest."

Did anyone note that when first Newt Gingrich, and then Rick Santorum began gaining ground on Romney in the primary, the coffers of those big Fortune 500 contributors opened up on behalf of Governor Romney?

Why did House Majority leader, Eric Cantor come out so early in his endorsement of Romney? Chris Cristie's early endorsement was payback to Carly Fiorina and understandable. But Cantor's? As memory serves me, Cantor is another "Ivy League scholar." Interesting parallel...

It would appear that "Neo-Con" strength is situated in the Northeast. True, they are nationwide. Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard is Chicago based, to name one. The financial clout in in the east. And money is what determines elections.

There have been outsiders. Ronald Reagan is one who comes to mind. But, that was 34 years ago. The demographics of the country have changed since that time. Some states have ventured down the path of Socialism to the extent that a return is improbable, if not impossible! Momentum is not on the side of reformers!

Only through (a)major legislation that alters the voting practices or (b) a contraction of states effectively allowing constitutional alterations can the United States escape what lurks as a dubious destiny for a land that started with such promise.

Saturday, March 16, 2013

A highly educated gentleman recently reminded me "how large our country is geographically in proportion to our population." It is! We have less than one-third the numbers of China, with 97% of the land mass. Furthermore, we have more land that is actually livable and arable than they do.

Russia is a huge land mass, two and one half times the size of the U.S.. But much of it is north of 60 degrees latitude. For those not acquainted with maps, Anchorage, Alaska rests at 61 degrees latitude. And, it's on the water. Most of Russia is that far north and hundreds of miles from a large body of water. Their second largest city, St. Petersburg is on the Baltic Sea and is about the same distance north as Anchorage. Driving across the vastness of Siberia is a humbling experience. So is January weather in this remote land!

Yes, America has the best of the best! Most people have never visited the Ouachita Mountain Region of Western Arkansas. It is an area the size of five New England states, with abundant rainfall, great farm and timberland, a temperate, four-season, mid-latitude climate and less than 30,000 people. Even little known Prince of Wales Island, in Southeastern Alaska boasts a climate similar to that of Scotland, a size that is slightly larger than Connecticut with a population of 3100 souls!

So why are we complaining! We are not! Common sense would tell you that we can take more people. A lot more people! But, isn't that what we're doing? Did not the United States hold 130 million in 1940 and 190 million in 1960? Are we not at almost 310 million today? Yes. But those numbers are deceiving.

With the passage of Roe versus Wade, the birthrate in the United States stabilized. This was post Baby Boom, which yielded increased birth rates between 1946 and 1964. As the Boomers retire, there is grave concern on who will be paying into the future Social Security system.

There is a shift in population to the west and especially to the south. Today, there is a much higher percentage of children under ten years of age in the south than in the north. At this rate, we will eventually see most of the population in the south.

In "E" is for English, I introduced an immigration plan that was based on a "points system." Points were given for education, skill or trade, language proficiency and, above all, age. The system was designed to attract immigrants under thirty with marketable skills and professions. Those proficient in English were given a preference due to the belief that they could more quickly and easily assimilate.

So what if the United States followed through on the subject of last week's post? What if we did contract to forty states? Would not there be a lot of Americans living in those ten states who would head south and west?

Most definitely!

Likely half of the population of those ten states would depart. They would be welcomed with opened arms! Those left behind would be composed of four groups: (a) the ones who couldn't financially afford to leave (b) those too old with roots too deep to make the transition, (c) Americans with large business interests who concluded that they would be better off taking advantage of the recast, and (d) Marxist ideologues dreaming of a "Socialist States of America."

Not surprisingly, those departing would meet fellow transients heading in the opposite direction! It could be expected that those adversely affected would make a bee line to the Northeast, where continued good times might prevail!

The Northeast would eventually be forced to close it's doors to the hoards of entitlees and illegal aliens, seeking asylum and/or, a handout. Their economy would transform into one of "wine, fishing and government." Charlotte would replace New York City as the "financial capital of the world."

The rest of the nation would take on a different terminology. It would go like this: "With the systems' cleanup, illegals living in the shadows and lifetime welfare recipients would be given a chance to become fully fledged contributors, something they always sought."

This is where the paradigm shift in America must take place. We must begin thinking of every American as "significant and relevant." It begins when each American sees himself or herself as "significant and relevant." They must become reacquainted with John F.Kennedy's famous proclamation, "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

No doubt there would be some who would not want to become fully fledged contributors. But, most would. And for those who didn't, there would always be the immigration option. As well as adjusting to "life on the bottom rung" of the new perfect society.

Could we not bring these vital constitutional changes with fifty states? In a perfect world, yes. But, we're far from perfection! The necessary "tweaks" to our constitution cannot be achieved with a three-fourths vote from our present fifty states. But, they might be with a three fourths vote from those forty states.

Besides! There are too many Americans living in those ten states. We need migration to lands less settled. The forty states hold 96% of the land in the United States and roughly 99% of both the agricultural and mineral wealth. What the Northeast holds is debt; from the rest of the country. If that is repudiated, they will have nothing, save thousands of smug, Marxist ideologues, rapidly declining real estate values, overpriced and overrated private institutions of learning and throngs of lazy, shiftless people seeking boonies.

The reprieved forty states could immediately benefit from a population justly compensated for monies stolen from their ancestors by Northeastern and European bankers. They could promptly fix an ailing entitlement system by implementing the immigration plan outlined in "E" is for English.

Overnight, America would gain young skilled professionals and tradesmen who would enter the country speaking English. The lunacy of our present immigration lottery would be written off as a "bad dream." Those refusing to assimilate would be taken off the highways and voting polls. Ours would be an America that was truly smarter, stronger and more secure.

What about those "smug, Marxist ideologues" residing in the forty states?

Many would head to the Northeast. Some would immigrate to Canada. Others would conclude that Europe was where their heart was and always had been. Still others would attempt to hold their ground, continuing to push a failed system based on faulty logic. For these "desirables," stronger measures might be in order.

We must remember that there has never been a Communist who considered themselves wrong! These people won't go down easily. They will fight. And, as they have proven, they fight dirty, accompanied by lies and deceit, with no ethics or compunction. They will recognize the threat upon them.

The day the contraction commences, will be the day that their dream of enslaving America dies. They will argue. They will protest. But, they should be given no quarter! This evil system is the polar opposite of what this country was founded upon.

Are we suggesting that the Northeast will become "Bolivia north?" Or, worse still, Cuba?

For a few years possibly. Then, the day will come when they will beg for admission, on our terms. Their population will be greatly diminished, which is something that needs to happen anyway. At that juncture, we can reconstruct them, using the same plan that they used to reconstruct the Southern states in the 1860's.

There is also the chance that New Hampshire, Vermont and Maine might ask Canada to annex them. This would not be a surprising development. These states are more closely aligned to the Canadians, ideologically than the New Yorkers.

Speaking of Cuba, look for the 40 states to move toward annexation. This should have taken place a century ago. Instead of bringing the island into the family of states, we allowed something called a "sugar beet" to cloud our judgment! More on that in a future post.

Sunday, March 10, 2013

Come on Jeff! You're dreaming! Nobody would ever consider 40 states divorcing ten states! Planting a human colony on Mars during the next ten years would be more likely!

So they would say. And, if you think about it, the chances of a development discussed in the March 2nd post on this blog are unlikely. Still, if we are considering what is best for the majority of Americans, not solely the privileged few, an argument can be made. However, let us begin with Americans in those forty states who would oppose the concept.

"Bolsheviks and Mensheviks." As in, "Stalinists and Trotskyites."

Stop! We're are not only in the wrong time! We are in the wrong country! Communism died twenty years ago. Right? Wrong! It's here in America! And thriving!

Thanks to these ten states, it has made an improbable recovery. Now it threatens to destroy the entire nation. And, we are so blind, so ignorant of history that we refrain from admitting as much; in the name of "political correctness!" Guess what? Political correctness is derived from Marxism! Imagine that.

Even more disquieting is the fact that perhaps 15% or more of those residing in these 40 states are Americans who lean toward the teachings of Lenin. Crazy? Not hardly. Study Marx. Research the Frankfurt School. Follow it's 1930's migration to New York City. It's a sad revelation! And even though Communism is responsible for 150 million worldwide deaths in the 20th century, the leaders remain unconvinced.

"Pushers" of this failed, godless system would vehemently oppose contraction. Why? Because it would signal "end game"for their attempt to steal America, "curtains" for their deceptive rhetoric. In essence, "exit visas" would be imminent for these silver tongued traitors!

Illegal immigrants would be highly concerned. The loss of ten of America's most liberal states representing 20 of America's most liberal Senators would have an impact. The "E" Amendment, proposed in my book introduces an immigration plan that has been called the most "fair, practical and comprehensive" proffered.

The "E" plan creates a path to citizenship. But, to get on that path, those illegally in the country would be required to pass a 10th grade English proficiency exam. This might create difficulties for those who have been slow to assimilate! For those able to pass the exam, there would be a requirement of (a) military service, (b) peace corp service or (c) service in the newly created "American Corps of Stateside Engineers." Unlike the Dream Act, those given a "path" would be on probation. This would translate to no access to entitlements.

Career entitlees throughout the nation would be horrified at the thought of someone "turning off the spicket!" However, is it fair for those having decided to be career "wards of the state" to enjoy the same privileges as those who continue to try eek out a living?

In a previous post, we investigated the Antebellum South's "Perfect Society Theory." Modern application would take these "career entitlees" off the voting rolls. No harm would come to them! They would simply be denied the right to vote. And this would cause a "hail storm" of protests from leftist groups needing the career entitlee voting block.

Fair? What about the families, working at low wage jobs, struggling to put food on their tables? Is if fair for career entitlees to live better than they do? The right to vote might not be considered much. But, it gives the working poor a say in government. The career entitlees have "no skin in the game!" Why should they have the same voice?

Obviously we are talking about destruction of Marxism in America! And with it, destruction of the Democrat Party. Without these constituencies, the donkey would die an agonizing death. Contraction causalities would also include Republican "Neo-Cons," whose inner most philosophy mirrors that of Leon Trotsky!

It is possible, if not probable that a forty-state union would repeal the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments. These changes would (a) partially fix the immigration problem, (b) force the federal government to live within it's means and (c) return power to the states.

With the previous generations' accrued wealth returned to the rightful owners, there would be an economic explosion never seen on the planet. And with Americas' new found affluence would come new alliances complete with new trading partners.

What about the "problem pockets" such as Los Angeles County, California and Cook County, Illinois? Many of those residents would be unhappy with the development! In fact, some would be extremely unhappy! What then?

There is no room for violence in a rich, bountiful country. As "E" is for English addressed, most of these urban dwellers have been kept illiterate and semi illiterate by divisive advocates of Marxism. Why? Because "sheeple" are easier to control than "people."

The re-emphasized educational approach would rescue millions from the horrors of ignorance. True, it will be a mortal wound for Marxism! But, their agenda should not be on the radar. Let alone a priority! Every American is significant and relevant. Every American deserves a shot at the American dream.

Sounds idealistic, doesn't it? Could it actually work? Yes, but we must first purge the continent of Marxism. Can anyone think of a more noble cause? But how would we do it?

The first step is to actually identify the Marxists. Don't expect them to hang a sign around their necks! There is a way. It starts with new broadcast network media ownership.

Saturday, March 2, 2013

Whether by Republican or Democrat politicians, news media or slick, professionally done television commericals, we are constantly reminded that ours is a "global economy" and that we live in a "global society." How refreshingly enlightening! Could anyone possibly object to contemporary progress?

Ron Paul made overtures that questioned this "contemporary progress." In double quick time, he was labeled an "isolationist." When he began insinuating that there was something afoul with the Fed, he was branded a "reactionary." But his words were not lost! Millions understood. And acknowledged.

Rick Santorum pressed the social issues a little too intensely. His real traction came when he spoke of an America that centered around the family, church and the factory job. Even the reliably conservative National Review labeled his vision, "twenty years" out of step.

Perhaps the trick comes down to convincing Americans that we do live in a global community. The sale stems around "this is the way that it is, for the good of the world. You must think globally!"

Thomas Friedman's book, "The World is Flat" covered a plan to "level the worlds playing field." This equated to a stepped up effort to use the worlds labor force, whenever possible, especially if and when it was cheaper! If higher unemployment in America resulted, it was a trade-off that Americans could live with!

The watchword is "cheaper." Fortune 500 companies want to be as efficient as possible. If it means exporting U.S. jobs abroad, American people must understand! It is being done for the good of "global peace, prosperity and cooperation." And, of course, enhanced profits for these companies! How could we overlook such an important factor. Let alone not appreciate it's implications!

You can't blame any one person! I have heard George W. Bush repeatedly praise "the global economy that we live it." Hasn't Barack Obama given his due to "our global society." Ditto for Bill Clinton , John Kerry, Mitt Romney and Al Gore!

Maybe some of us are simply living in the wrong time! Or, on the wrong planet!

Today, nationalism often connotates to a militant, almost zealous type of bigotry. Growing up, it was "cool" to love your country. Today's standard includes mocking it and apologizing for it! All in the name of being a trusted global partner whom other nations can look up to and preferably exploit!

There are growing numbers of red blooded Americans who are beginning to ask the proverbial "why?" As in, "why" are we so obsessed with our becoming a mere spoke in the world's ever transforming globalist wheel? Wouldn't it be more to our advantage to resume our place as the world's bastion of strength, leading by example?

In theory, most agree. Then the difficult truth surfaces. G. Edward Griffin's "the Creature from Jekyll Island," opens the door to some startling revelations. This provocative 600-page read, leaves no stone unturned. Upon conclusion, you will know about the Federal Reserve, when it was established, how it was established and why.

That was in 1910. 103 years later, we have eight cartels, primarily headquartered in the Northeast United States and Western Europe. Their collective net worth exceeds 100 trillion dollars. Nobody is yet to fathom how they accumulated such wealth.

Majority stock ownership of every Fortune 500 companies can be traced to one or more of these eight cartels. In a 2012 post, I made note that these same companies were contributing to both the Obama and Romney campaigns. As a former CIA operative phrased, "it's like a red team and a blue team, playing for the same school."

There are some who say that we no longer live in a Republic. What we have is actually a giant, multi-level, international corporation. And, there is positively nothing that we can do about it! It just is!

Or is it?

Griffin explains that they average politicians' price is "$125,000." So, when someone begins questioning "how it is," the checkbooks come out. For those who may need stronger persuasion, there are other methods. Ask John F. Kennedy!

Conspiracy theory? This is often the notation pinned on Griffin and Congressman Paul. Best to "leave well enough alone!" After all, things could get dangerous! The only time of true concern is when people become desperate.

The most lethal adversary is one who concludes that he has nothing to lose. We have experienced a huge wealth transfer since 1997. The middle class is being squeezed out. Tell tale films such as "Gray Nation" and "Agenda-Grinding America Down," are being viewed with diminishing skepticism. There is a growing isolationist yearning. The issue that Barack Obama so expertly used to destroy Mitt Romney's credibility is being murmured on both sides of the aisle.

The American economy is not creating jobs fast enough to keep up with population growth. Republicans blame the Obama policies. But Romney missed a golden opportunity to make identity theft a key issue in his campaign. Maybe it was due to his mediocre advisers. Perhaps he couldn't bear to tell Fortune 500 companies that offshore outsourcing had to be prohibited when an Americans' social security number was required. Either way, the former Massachusetts Governor missed the perfect chance to nail Barack Obama as the ultimate hypocrite.

Mitt Romney is a smart man. If I saw this as a game changer, he certainly did! Therefore, it can be concluded that he refrained because "as a member of the "red" team," he didn't want to embarrass a member of the "blue team," hopelessly embarrassing the school." Let us not forget, every time the Repubican primary began to tighten, the negative advertising would come out against, first Gingrich, then Santorum. Who paid for it? Romney pretended that he didn't know.

Is America done? Perhaps not! After all, when enough of the nation says, "not so fast," there is a chance of a reversal. We must first cope with the media. As Griffin reports, the mainstream media is "totally controlled by the Council of Foreign Relations."

This can't be right! Isn't it prohibited for a foreign entity to control our broadcast media? Yes, it is. But somehow, the law has been transcended! And that brings us to the core problem: How are we going to get the word out when they control the airwaves?

Newt Gingrich was accurate when he labeled the mainstream media as a "reflection of Soviet Pravda." To successfully bring about changes in media ownership, we must transform the state that they are based in into a foreign country. And there is only one way that this can happen. It is called "contraction."

CFR controlled NBC would not cease to broadcast! It would be broadcasting to a smaller universe. This ploy would be nothing short of revolutionary. We are not talking about secession, 1861 style. It's more like a part of the country biding another part of the country "adieu."

More specifically, forty states would cut New England, New York, New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland
loose, repudiating all debt owed to these states. Would it lead to global depresssion? Yes. And it would greatly reduce the wealth and influence of the cartels!

New York City would resemble Warsaw, in 1944. Boston would be reminiscent of Jackson, Mississippi; in 1865. But the remaining 40 states would survive and actually emerge as the new world super power. These forty states hold practially all of the nations mineral and agricultural wealth. What they would be leaving behind would be "paper," as in debt.

Impossible? Never underestimate Nationalism. It has proven throughout history to be consistently potent. When Americans begin to "read between the lines," determining who these cartels represent, there will be rage, accompanied by an overflowing feeling of joy. When the cartels realize that the strongest, smartest most bold people in the world have "pressed their number," they will quietly acquiesce. After all, the memories of Auschwitz are still too fresh for comfort!